The Alberta Labour Relations Board has decided that the NHL's lockout of players from the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames can continue.The board said in a written ruling released Wednesday that forcing an end to the lockout for two members of a 30-team league would be unlikely to solve the contract dispute between the National Hockey League and the players' union."It is our expectation this is nothing more than an unhelpful distraction from their efforts," the ruling said. "An order declaring the lockout to be in violation of the (Alberta Labour Relations) Code would have no positive impact on this dispute."

50% is only reasonable if you believe 52 and 48 to be equally unreasonable, but you can't determine that unless you already know 50 to be the "right" number.. You're using circular logic here. In essence saying "I know 50% is the fair number because both sides are equally wrong. I know both sides are equally wrong because they are both equally as far from the fair number."

Same goes for who has "compromised more". In order to give equal weight to concessions made on either side, the starting points have to be equally far from an objective standard. By your logic, the worse the starting offer, the better the end result. It's a terrible negotiating strategy. Unfortunately it's what the owners decided to go with. (Though I do recognize, and in certain way appreciate, the symbolism of originally offering the players 43%.)

Of course, there isn't any actual objective standard, and what's fair is basically whatever the players and owners agree is fair. But there is a true market value. And all the evidence we have suggest that it would substantially higher (probably around 10%) than even the 57% the players were getting. That value is destructive to the industry, largely because those setting the market are stupid. But actual logic would say that the correct value of the players would be as little below the market value as is needed to keep the industry stable.

The numbers say 57% meets that criteria, or is maybe a little low (though some owner profit is required as an incentive). So again I say the owners should be grateful that the players are willing to go even lower (and much lower if revenues keep growing so significantly).

I do want both sides to compromise. I just recognize the very sizable concession the players already made to get to 57%. Your starting point for the players should be around ~66%. By that standard, the players have come much further. Pretty much at the mid-point already, maybe even a bit under.

I don't agree that the 57% number fits the criteria. In the NFL and NBA where a salary cap exists, it is closer to a 50-50 split in each league. Do I agree that the players should get more? Yes I do. At the same time, I do see the rising costs that the teams have to absorb. Billionaires that own teams should have the right to at least try to make a profit with their investments. Illitch breaks even most years or loses a little money because he chooses to compete for a cup. Teams like the Maple Leafs can stink on the ice but still turn a profit.

I do agree with you that the owners had more to give than the players just based on their crap proposal. I just expect the NHLPA to follow suit a bit more than they have and to stop dragging their feet through this process. So far, they have been reluctant to play ball so to speak and delay the negotiations in favor of playing the PR game.

Now we are at a stage where the NHL final number is around 48% while the NHLPA final number is around 54%. Where we are at today, doesn't it make sense for both sides to concede a bit and make it a 51%-49% in favor of the players? I do agree with you as well that if you have a number in mind that the players or owners should make, then meeting in the middle is flawed logic. I have taken no side in this. If anything, those people who have taken a side in this and are comfortable giving a number on how much their side should earn may not be operating on flawed logic in their minds, but they see all other numbers as "flawed logic". I compare it to believing in being a republican or democrat. Its impossible to see the other side and their opinions when you are so focused into the side you support.

In short, the number that I had for the NHLPA has adjusted about 1/2 percentage point down, but there is still a deal to be made here. I hope that the NHLPA gets to that 52% number. At the same time, I hope that both sides can come to some kind of decision on what is fair and make a deal.

The 50-50 split in other leagues is irrelevant because of the way revenues are defined. Why do you think the definition of HRR is a core issue right now?

Agreed.

Plus leagues like the NBA have much greater revenue sharing and a luxury tax system. Given the revenue situation and cap structure are so different, it's not really apples to apples comparison. It's not just about 50%, it's about the total package.

Plus leagues like the NBA have much greater revenue sharing and a luxury tax system. Given the revenue situation and cap structure are so different, it's not really apples to apples comparison. It's not just about 50%, it's about the total package.

Agreed, which is why the 57% is also irrelevant to the big picture of HRR, and so are the 52%-48% numbers I was envisioning. In the end, the rest of the deal and the HRR are going to be just as big as the percentages that each side get.

Which is also why I agree with Dreger. It shouldn't be this hard. Both sides are making it harder than it should be. We should be watching hockey tonight.

Neither side has given an offer in three weeks, but NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly stated that the NHLPA is in the midst of putting together a new offer."We're encouraging them to make a proposal," said Daly. "We've suggested to them to make the proposal because any movement is better than no movement at all."

a nice article on a breakdown on where the players are heading overseas too. the artilcle also makes a good point in that the teams like the red wings who have a ton of guys playing overseas will have an advantage over the teams who don't have a lot of guys playing overseas if a season is played

I didn't get that out of the article. It's just all the same quotes from Daly saying they want them to, but I didn't see the article say they were working on one. On that note though, I did see something earlier this week that suggested the PA was working on a new proposal.

I didn't get that out of the article. It's just all the same quotes from Daly saying they want them to, but I didn't see the article say they were working on one. On that note though, I did see something earlier this week that suggested the PA was working on a new proposal.

I don't know if you skipped over it or what, but I did directly quote the article in my post;

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly stated that the NHLPA is in the midst of putting together a new offer.

The 50-50 split in other leagues is irrelevant because of the way revenues are defined. Why do you think the definition of HRR is a core issue right now?

For the record, the NBA and NFL both take the players share from sport related revenue. Same thing as the NHL, with maybe some minor differences in the details.

The major difference with the NBA is that the players can go over their share. It's a sliding scale from 49-51%, and it's possible for players to go 6% over that without any changes to revenue forecasts, cap, tax limit, etc. They can even go higher than that, but then they start changing things. From what I've read, it seems unlikely the players would go over by more than a small amount. They hold 10% in escrow, so team payrolls would have to be a larger amount than that over the cap.

The other major difference is the NBA has half as many players. I think the NHL players would be fine with a lower share if their average salary more than doubled.

The NFL has traditionally had a fairly weak union. The owners seem to roll over them pretty easily. Given the number of players, the massive revenues and the profit margins, you'd think the players would push harder for a better deal. The main difference is the amount of revenue. Like $9 billion in the NFL. I'm sure the NHL players would be thrilled with half of that.

I have no problem with the NHL asking for a ~50% split, I just think they need to rely on revenue growth to get there instead of expecting it this year and rolling back salaries. From Fehr's comments, it doesn't seem like the players mind that idea either, provided revenues grow fast enough.